If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Hi Jeff
The problem is the word of a doctor , who arrived in the square when at least three ,probably four and possibly more lamps were lighting that corner up .
his previous walks through should not be taken as evidence of anything due to variable moonlight .
By stating there would be enough light in that corner he was effectively suggesting that every night has equal moonlight ,irrespective of lunar cycle or cloud cover .

No, by stating there would be enough light he is telling us about that specific night, unless you have a quote of him saying "it was bright enough two weeks ago when the moon was out and the air was fresh". His statement is clear that he's referring to the night, and conditions, of the murder scene.

If anyone agrees with this nonsense we really are in trouble lol

Nick

- Jeff

Comment

No, by stating there would be enough light he is telling us about that specific night, unless you have a quote of him saying "it was bright enough two weeks ago when the moon was out and the air was fresh". His statement is clear that he's referring to the night, and conditions, of the murder scene.

- Jeff

Where do you get the idea he had walked through that particular night .
Do you not think that would have been pertinent to mention had he done so ?
had he not been through that night then your comments make no sense .He couldn't possibly judge the light in the square on every particular night through the lunar cycle abd take the weather conditions into consideration

Comment

Dr Biggs' comments on the Eddowes murder: " I am of the opinion that 5 minutes is plenty of time to walk 50 yards, cut the throat (with or without the period of initial strangulation), stab five times to the abdomen (including a wide opening), lift up the clothes and then remove some tissue (such as the uterus and kidney)" (Marriott, 2016)

Of course, we don't know that the killer had only 5 minutes to accomplish all of these components..he could have had considerably longer. For instance, the time of the Lawende sighting, at 1:35, is probably reasobably accurate, as he had checked the clock. However, the time PC Watkins discovered the body is open to question. He stated at the inquest, initially, that it was at 1:40. However, he then told Crawford that it was 1:44! His evidence is clearly all over the place, and his timings can therefore only be regarded as guesswork at best. And he wouldn't be the first PC during this inquiry to be significantly out with his timings: as I've argued before, PC Smith claimed that he'd returned to Berner Street at 1:00am, but he must have been out by about 10 minutes.

As to whether Eddowes was murdered elsewhere, let me refer to Dr Brown: " I do not think that there is any foundation to the theory. The blood on the left side was clotted, and must have fallen at the time the throat was cut. I do not think the deceased moved the least bit after that."

Comment

As to whether Eddowes was murdered elsewhere, let me refer to Dr Brown: " I do not think that there is any foundation to the theory. The blood on the left side was clotted, and must have fallen at the time the throat was cut. I do not think the deceased moved the least bit after that."

A tiny pool of blood mixing with the rain on the wet pavement ...
Just as a reminder blood was still oozing from the neck of the Pinchin Street torso ....

Comment

My exasperation got the better of me. Trevor and I have jousted often enough in the past anyway.

And yes, Trevor's willingness to consider "other than the obvious" is an asset. It forces everyone, himself included, to carefully consider the evidence and where it leads.

Her body was cut open like a gutted herring, her intestines were pulled out and a length of colon cut out and placed beside her in Mitre Square... and the killer left it at that, only for someone else to remove Eddowes' uterus and one kidney later? The idea beggars belief.

Comment

A tiny pool of blood mixing with the rain on the wet pavement ...
Just as a reminder blood was still oozing from the neck of the Pinchin Street torso ....

No it wasn't, that's completely absurd! In fact, at the Pinchin Street Torso inquest the medical opinion was that the victim had been dead for 4 or 5 days. How on earth could blood still be oozing from the neck after such a period? And what do you mean by neck? The victim had been decapitated.

I'm sorry, but I think we're now starting to enter the realm of fantasy.

Comment

Let's keep the personal attacks out of it, please. And yes, Trevor's willingness to consider "other than the obvious" is an asset. It forces everyone, himself included, to carefully consider the evidence and where it leads. While he's convinced that it leads him in directions that I may disagree with, his arguments and suggestions have required me to look at the evidence more closely. And even by keeping to his insistance that Lawende's time of the sighting/end of the rain (1:35), and PC Havey's earliest patrol time (1:41), still leads to a 6 minute window in which to fit a 5 minute murder, with 1 minute available to the Church Passage Couple to make a 30 second journey. So even by his strictest criterion, there is nothing in the evidence that rules out that JtR had enough time to commit the murder and escape upon PC Harvey's arrival, which is likely to have caused him to flee. It also means that even in the most restrictive reading of the evidence there is still enough time for the Church Passage Couple to get from where they were last seen to the crime scene in time for that 5 minute murder to occur, which means they are not ruled out by any of the evidence.

The debate over removal of organs, and such, are not relevant to this thread, and personal attacks are not conducive to the sharing of ideas. What is relevant to this topic is whether or not the 5 minute window for the murder is reasonable. Trevor thinks that it is not, and that more time was required. But we don't know how much more time Trevor thinks would be required to do the murder including the taking of organs. Once we know his opinion on that, we can consider that information in light of the evidence we have and consider it's validity in and of itself. Without that information, however, we're at an impasse in the discussion because we don't know what the discussion is about.

The deer video is just to show how quickly a sharp knife can cut through very tough skin, and it shows the kind of cuts that are used to do so by one who cleans animals. It also shows that without working very fast one can entirely gut an animal in less than a minute. The amount of time to cut open the abdomen, remove a few flaps of skin, remove a few bits of intestines, remove a uterus with one sweep of the knife (thinking Chapman here), would take no more time than that, particularly if one is working even faster than the hunter in the video. Eddowes' murder and mutilations, including all of the organ harvesting is, in my view, more than possible in 5 minutes. But I want to know how long Trevor thinks would be required to do all that, because he clearly thinks more time is required because he thinks there wasn't enough time. So Trevor's view must be more than the 6 minutes, but how much more I have no idea, so I don't know what he's thinking.

- Jeff

Jeff
I am not a medical expert, and I guess neither are you so we have to go by what the medical experts tell us both from 1888 and modern day experts.

Dr Brown gives a "minimum" time of 5 mins, but states it could have been longer, so with that in mind we cannot readily accept 5 mins as being set in stone and an accurate time to work with, simply because he was not an expert in the female anatomy, and so he called on an expert, as a result of I would suggest his concerns over the same time issues as we are discussing.

Now that expert took a minimum of 3 mins to mirror the work of the killer. Of course we dont know under what conditions he worked but it took him 3 mins, some reports say 3.30mins. Now again we dont know if that was to remove both organs or just the uterus, but this expert removed the uterus and damaged the bladder. Something the killer did not do. Now this is important because all those on here who keep saying the killer was a slaughter man,and keep citing removing organs from dead animals in haste. If the killer was in haste he didnt damage the bladder of Eddowes, and therefore if the killer did remove the organs he was either an expert in female anatomy and his practical medical skills were on a par with Browns female anatomy expert to be able to remove them at speed without damaging the bladder.

Here are some quotes from Edmond Neale-Consultant gynecologist

Eddowes murder

"I agree with the suggestion at the time that to have removed a kidney would require a degree of knowledge, but it is interesting that it is the left kidney that was removed rather than the right, which would probably be more difficult to access because of the liver, thereby making the task of removal more difficult to accomplish, and a longer time frame needed"

There are four sets of ligaments attached to a normal uterus. The round ligament arises from the top, the broad ligament from the side (and has the fallopian tube at its top and the ovary right behind) and the cardinal and uterosacral ligaments which are attached in the region of the cervix. Victorian anatomists were usually quite precise, so I am surprised that there is not greater detail of which of these ligaments were removed and which were not, however suffice to say that the round and broad ligaments would have to be cut or removed in part even to perform a subtotal hysterectomy.

It should also be noted that an anatomist would know that there would be no need to take out the intestines in order to remove a uterus.

The kidneys lay either side of the spine protected by fat and the peritoneal membrane. Again they have a particular feel and consistency unique for their position, which someone with specific anatomical knowledge would only know.

It would require more specific medical knowledge to understand the need to sever the mesentery of the gut in order to identify the kidney and remove it. If the killer knew of the position of the kidney they would also be aware that the only “attachment” is the vessels and ureter which lie between the kidney and the spine. If one was not concerned with preserving life a simple longitudinal cut parallel to the spine would create an opening in the peritoneum into which a finger and then a hand could be placed and the kidney “shelled out”.

Dr Browns inquest testimony

“The intestines had been detached to a large extent from the mesentery. About two feet of the colon was cut away.

Chapman Murder- Mr Neale

The removal of a portion of the bladder suggests to me that speed was important, but does not help determine where or when it was done. However I note that in this case it seems to have been important for the perpetrator to remove the female pelvic organs intact (i.e. uterus, cervix, ovaries and fallopian tubes), which could, in conjunction with a nephrectomy suggest removal for experimentation.

Conclusions from Mr Neale

I would say that Dr Browns total estimate of “at least five minutes” was based on the fact that for the killer to have been able to remove them in that time frame, he must have had sufficient anatomical knowledge to be able to locate the organs and to be able to remove them, which Dr Brown confirms in his inquest testimony. I would suggest that someone without that knowledge would not be able to accomplish those removals within that time frame, given the crime scene conditions, and the anatomical knowledge required.

As to whether there are any identifying traits which might point to the organs being removed by two different people, with only two removals to compare I don’t think I am able to say whether it was one, or a different person, but I do note that the two hysterectomies were performed differently. One is a clear cut below the cervix finding the natural gap we use to perform a hysterectomy, and one has damaged the bladder. One included the ovaries and fallopian tubes, and one has not. But one might suggest that if the same person had been responsible for removing the organs from both victims he might have adopted the same procedure for both. Although the removal of the uterus from Chapman looks to have been done in haste, whereas the removal of the organs from Eddowes looks to have been done in less haste.

Comment

Do you have a source for the substandard lighting inside the square that night? I know that one outside the square was reported as below par on the night of the murder, but can't recall which one within the square wasn't working properly.

Comment

My exasperation got the better of me. Trevor and I have jousted often enough in the past anyway.Her body was cut open like a gutted herring, her intestines were pulled out and a length of colon cut out and placed beside her in Mitre Square... and the killer left it at that, only for someone else to remove Eddowes' uterus and one kidney later? The idea beggars belief.

Comment

No it wasn't, that's completely absurd! In fact, at the Pinchin Street Torso inquest the medical opinion was that the victim had been dead for 4 or 5 days. How on earth could blood still be oozing from the neck after such a period? And what do you mean by neck? The victim had been decapitated.

I'm sorry, but I think we're now starting to enter the realm of fantasy.

Dr Clarke
Pinchin Street torso inquest 24th Sept 89
Taken from the Times of the 25th

On moving the body I found that there was a little blood underneath where the neck had lain. It was small in quantity and not clotted. The blood had oozed from the cut surface of the neck.

Comment

No it wasn't, that's completely absurd! In fact, at the Pinchin Street Torso inquest the medical opinion was that the victim had been dead for 4 or 5 days. How on earth could blood still be oozing from the neck after such a period? And what do you mean by neck? The victim had been decapitated.

I'm sorry, but I think we're now starting to enter the realm of fantasy.

I believe the evidence points to the neck wound having been originally covered by a chemise, but when the torso was dumped, or when it was disturbed by the doctor or PC, the chemise was removed and so a little blood was able to ooze from the neck.

Comment

And now hopefully nobody could use oozing blood to contest that Eddowes could have been killed elsewhere sometime between 1 and 1.30 and deposited in situ at around 1.40
The blood ceases to become an argument considering how little there was .....